document_resize

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds useful context beyond that: it specifies 'page_only semantics' and 'preserving element geometry', indicating the mutation does not move elements. It also adds the revision prerequisite. However, it does not elaborate on the effects of other modes or commit behavior, so it partially discloses but doesn't fully cover the mutation's impact.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and a critical prerequisite. No wasted words, and the most important information (effect on geometry) is stated early. Excellent structure for its length.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 8 parameters (6 required), multiple enums, and an output schema, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain parameter interactions, defaults, or the meaning of modes and anchors. While the output schema exists, an agent still needs guidance on constructing valid calls, which is missing here. The description leaves too many gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for parameter meaning. It only mentions 'page_only semantics' (related to mode) and the revision requirement (expectedRevision). It does not explain width, height, unit, anchor, path, workspaceId, or the other mode options. For an 8-parameter tool, this is insufficient.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('changes'), resource ('SVG page size'), and a specific semantic ('page_only semantics') while preserving element geometry. This distinguishes it from siblings like elements_transform or document_pages, making the purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides a clear usage prerequisite ('Requires the current document revision') which is relevant for concurrency. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use this tool or name alternative tools, leaving some inference to the agent. Still, the purpose is specific enough that usage is mostly clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.